• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

matchlight said:
I notice the Supreme Court made a point of noting in Hilbel that the Nevada statute it was upholding as constitutional did not require the detainee in a Terry stop to show police a driver's license or other identifying document, but only to tell them his name.

The Court also said that requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment because compelling Hilbel to give police his name, by itself, did not expose him to any substantial risk of self-incrimination. The Court recognized, though, that there might be circumstances in which that issue would come up:

"Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow."

I don't see how the police did anything unreasonable in this case, or what good reason this woman had not to cooperate with them.
Click to expand...

The incident involving Ms. Watts was not a "Terry Stop". The cop was actively investigating a complaint of a criminal act.
 
clownboy said:
The news report from the audio link states quite clearly you are required to show ID on a probable cause stop in CA.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a "probable cause stop" is, other than an arrest. Probable cause is what is required for police to make an arrest. A "Terry stop"--i.e. a brief investigatory detention--requires only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a lower standard. For Fourth Amendment purposes, both investigatory detentions and arrests
are "seizures."
 
matchlight said:
I notice the Supreme Court made a point of noting in Hilbel that the Nevada statute it was upholding as constitutional did not require the detainee in a Terry stop to show police a driver's license or other identifying document, but only to tell them his name.

The Court also said that requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment because compelling Hilbel to give police his name, by itself, did not expose him to any substantial risk of self-incrimination. The Court recognized, though, that there might be circumstances in which that issue would come up:

"Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow."

I don't see how the police did anything unreasonable in this case, or what good reason this woman had not to cooperate with them.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a Terry stop

Context.
 
sangha said:
This wasn't a Terry stop

Context.
Click to expand...

In the article originally referred to, the police stated that they "briefly detained" this woman and then released her. If this was not a brief investigatory detention carried out on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity--often called a Terry stop, or in another variant, a stop-and-frisk--what else was it? If it was an arrest, the police must have had probable cause to believe this woman had committed a crime. And if they did, why did they then quickly release her?
 
matchlight said:
In the article originally referred to, the police stated that they "briefly detained" this woman and then released her. If this was not a brief investigatory detention carried out on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity--often called a Terry stop, or in another variant, a stop-and-frisk--what else was it? If it was an arrest, the police must have had probable cause to believe this woman had committed a crime. And if they did, why did they then quickly release her?
Click to expand...

An eyewitness who saw Daniele and Brian as he worked in a nearby office tells TMZ ... Brian was sitting in the passenger seat with his feet on the curb and Daniele was straddling him with her shirt pulled up -- breasts exposed. The eyewitness says she was grinding on top of him, rocking back and forth.

Someone from the office went down and asked Daniele and Brian to stop because everyone in the office could see them but they continued.
Click to expand...

This was the complaint. Now whether or not you find merit in the complaint - it is what it is and it may mean nothing to you personally. However, ff this behavior is a statutory offense, the police had to deal with it based on the complaints.
 
matchlight said:
In the article originally referred to, the police stated that they "briefly detained" this woman and then released her. If this was not a brief investigatory detention carried out on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity--often called a Terry stop, or in another variant, a stop-and-frisk--what else was it? If it was an arrest, the police must have had probable cause to believe this woman had committed a crime. And if they did, why did they then quickly release her?
Click to expand...

Your question assumes that a detainment is for probable cause, or it's a Terry stop. That is not true.
 
matchlight said:
In the article originally referred to, the police stated that they "briefly detained" this woman and then released her. If this was not a brief investigatory detention carried out on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity--often called a Terry stop, or in another variant, a stop-and-frisk--what else was it? If it was an arrest, the police must have had probable cause to believe this woman had committed a crime. And if they did, why did they then quickly release her?
Click to expand...

A "Terry Stop" is a stop based some kind of articluable reason to investigate the purpose of an individual being in a certain place or acting in a certain manner that is unusual and indicative of the possibility of criminal behavior. For example, 3 guys standing on the corner wearing gang colors might lead to a Terry Stop.

This stop was predicated on the report of criminal activity taking place. It's a subtle difference but since a crime was actually reported it's no longer a Terry Stop. Since it was an investigation of possible criminal activity the cop had every right (and an obligation) to identify the suspects. If, after investigating, he found no reason for arrest he could let everyone go but while he was investigating any refusal of the suspects to identify themselves should be considered to be obstruction.
 
I have zero sympathy for her. SHE made the big deal about it. Not the cop. She was a suspect in a crime. Innocent or guilty if you are asked for ID, you show it. If you don't, you are still a suspect. You get to go to jail.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I have zero sympathy for her. SHE made the big deal about it. Not the cop. She was a suspect in a crime. Innocent or guilty if you are asked for ID, you show it. If you don't, you are still a suspect. You get to go to jail.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is should you have to. Even if you show ID, that doesn't prove guilt or innocence, and if she wasn't driving she's under no obligation to be carrying her license.

I have a little bit of a problem with becoming the sort of place where a cop can walk up to anybody for any reason and ask to see their "papers." I don't want to live in a police state.
 
rocket88 said:
I guess the question is should you have to. Even if you show ID, that doesn't prove guilt or innocence, and if she wasn't driving she's under no obligation to be carrying her license.

I have a little bit of a problem with becoming the sort of place where a cop can walk up to anybody for any reason and ask to see their "papers." I have a problem with becoming a police state.
Click to expand...

He did "just walk up to her". He was called and there for a specific reason. Trust me we are so far from a real police state its not even funny.
 
clownboy said:
No, that's not how it goes. If he finds them clothed, he identifies them and takes down all the details. It's then referred to detectives who investigate the complaints called in. If the witnesses want to step forward and the DA wants to go forward with the case, then it's a matter for the court to decide.
Click to expand...

Thank you Dick Tracey.
 
Removable Mind said:
This was the complaint. Now whether or not you find merit in the complaint - it is what it is and it may mean nothing to you personally. However, ff this behavior is a statutory offense, the police had to deal with it based on the complaints.
Click to expand...

You are right that none of this means anything to me personally. I'm not interested in who claimed what about her activities to the police, or the merits of what they claimed. It seems clear the report police received at least gave them the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity they needed to detain this woman briefly to ask her about it, even if it did not give them the probable cause needed to arrest her.

I was responding to a poster's claim that this seizure of this woman by police was not a Terry stop, and I asked him what else it was. After all, it must have been either a brief investigatory detention--often called a Terry stop--or an arrest. And I don't see anything in the facts that shows the police arrested her. I heard that at some point they handcuffed her, but that by itself does not prove she was under arrest. The Supreme Court has made clear police may use some force during a Terry stop, for example to keep the detainee they're questioning from running away. If they had probable cause to think this woman had committed a crime, and arrested her because of it, why did they turn right around and let her go?

Actually, the most interesting question about all this for me is what basis there is for state laws making public fornication a crime. Our Supreme Court has held that promoting the majority's view that an act involving sex is immoral and unacceptable is not a legitimate interest of government, and that therefore laws which serve only this interest are unconstitutional. I don't see what other government interest is served by a law against fornication, any more than state laws against homosexual sodomy, masturbation, adult incest, bestiality, and so on.
 
matchlight said:
I was responding to a poster's claim that this seizure of this woman by police was not a Terry stop
Click to expand...

Umm, no. Your responses began after I pointed out that a person can be detained (until the police can identify you) for refusing to identify yourself
 
sangha said:
Umm, no. Your responses began after I pointed out that a person can be detained (until the police can identify you) for refusing to identify yourself
Click to expand...

These were your words in #103: "This wasn't a Terry stop." As I said to Removable Mind, that was the post I was responding to in the post he responded to.

But come to the point. Tell us what kind of seizure this was, if not a Terry stop. An arrest?
 
matchlight said:
These were your words in #103: "This wasn't a Terry stop." As I said to Removable Mind, that was the post I was responding to in the post he responded to.

But come to the point. Tell us what kind of seizure this was, if not a Terry stop. An arrest?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure your posts #94 and #100 came before my post #103

And again, there are more choices than "terry stop or arrest"

Do you have a point, or do you just like to quibble?
 
Lutherf said:
Obstructing a lawful investigation is a crime pretty much everywhere.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's an indication that we need to change our laws then.

I mean the racial component injects a fair amount of political divisiveness into this but at the end of the day the "investigation" that she obstructed basically began and ended with checking that ID. It's hard for me to believe turning over her ID played a crucial role in the investigation that decided she committed no crime, so I'm not really sure why it was so crucial that she turn over that ID.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Maybe that's an indication that we need to change our laws then.

I mean the racial component injects a fair amount of political divisiveness into this but at the end of the day the "investigation" that she obstructed basically began and ended with checking that ID. It's hard for me to believe turning over her ID played a crucial role in the investigation that decided she committed no crime, so I'm not really sure why it was so crucial that she turn over that ID.
Click to expand...

In CA, refusing to identify oneself is not considered obstruction unless the police have probable cause, in which case you're probably arrested.
 
matchlight said:
You are right that none of this means anything to me personally. I'm not interested in who claimed what about her activities to the police, or the merits of what they claimed. It seems clear the report police received at least gave them the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity they needed to detain this woman briefly to ask her about it, even if it did not give them the probable cause needed to arrest her.

I was responding to a poster's claim that this seizure of this woman by police was not a Terry stop, and I asked him what else it was. After all, it must have been either a brief investigatory detention--often called a Terry stop--or an arrest. And I don't see anything in the facts that shows the police arrested her. I heard that at some point they handcuffed her, but that by itself does not prove she was under arrest. The Supreme Court has made clear police may use some force during a Terry stop, for example to keep the detainee they're questioning from running away. If they had probable cause to think this woman had committed a crime, and arrested her because of it, why did they turn right around and let her go?

Actually, the most interesting question about all this for me is what basis there is for state laws making public fornication a crime. Our Supreme Court has held that promoting the majority's view that an act involving sex is immoral and unacceptable is not a legitimate interest of government, and that therefore laws which serve only this interest are unconstitutional. I don't see what other government interest is served by a law against fornication, any more than state laws against homosexual sodomy, masturbation, adult incest, bestiality, and so on.
Click to expand...

SC: Promoting the majority's view that an act involving sex as immoral or unacceptable s not the legitimate interest of government. Okay. :shrug:

The SCOTUS may not have an interest in issues like gender related sex or what sex act is moral or immoral.

As far as I'm concerned, if one is going to do their neighbor's goat. I don't personally care. But I might add...just don't get caught doing it in a public place.

However....

When did the S.C. rule that states can't make laws regarding sexual conduct in public places like in cars in the view of others, on park benches, at public swimming pools, inside a state capitol building, etc?

New York court has ruled that sex in a car was not sex in a public place unless the act could be readily seen by passers-by. (People v. McNamara, 585 N.E.2nd 788 (1991).)

I think that you'll find this to be the case in most states. And most laws are considered to be misdemeanor type laws. How exactly are these types of laws unconstitutional?
 
shavingcollywob said:
Maybe that's an indication that we need to change our laws then.

I mean the racial component injects a fair amount of political divisiveness into this but at the end of the day the "investigation" that she obstructed basically began and ended with checking that ID. It's hard for me to believe turning over her ID played a crucial role in the investigation that decided she committed no crime, so I'm not really sure why it was so crucial that she turn over that ID.
Click to expand...

First off...she is the one who interjected race. It was a simple public indecency or prostitution investigation before that.

Second, when investigating the alleged crime the cop should check the ID's of the people involved. If the woman came up as a known prostitute or the guy came up as a known John then there would have been cause to investigate further.

The law doesn't need to change. What needs to happen is that people need to start understanding that the world doesn't revolve around them and that their farts don't smell like lilac. It's also time to look at exactly how this "animosity" between cops and blacks is really generated.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate the "for any reason" part of your comments. Perhaps I come from a different generation - I was raised to respect police officers and I've never had any reason not to do so. It's my nature to cooperate with them and I've avoided numerous speeding tickets by being a gentleman, fully cooperative, and truthful. I'd use your phrase back at you and say it's usually not helpful if you're obstinate "for no good reason".
Click to expand...

I think this general scenario is really problematic of today's police force.

It seems to me that the "investigation" really began and ended with checking this woman's ID, which is to say there really wasn't an investigation. The officers should up to a complaint, there was no evidence one way or the other, but the woman didn't show the officers enough respect so they hassled her a little bit. I'm generally a polite person but I think everyone should be uncomfortable with the idea that if you don't show the police enough respect that they can hassle you. There was no real reason for them to slap the cuffs on this woman then stuff her in a squad car. They just didn't like her attitude.

But then why should I have to show respect for people who behave that way?

If they behaved that way in any other profession we would be calling them assholes.
 
shavingcollywob said:
I think this general scenario is really problematic of today's police force.

It seems to me that the "investigation" really began and ended with checking this woman's ID, which is to say there really wasn't an investigation. The officers should up to a complaint, there was no evidence one way or the other, but the woman didn't show the officers enough respect so they hassled her a little bit. I'm generally a polite person but I think everyone should be uncomfortable with the idea that if you don't show the police enough respect that they can hassle you. There was no real reason for them to slap the cuffs on this woman then stuff her in a squad car. They just didn't like her attitude.

But then why should I have to show respect for people who behave that way?

If they behaved that way in any other profession we would be calling them assholes.
Click to expand...

There were a number of witnesses in an office building, one of which confronted the two while they were having sex...and they shunned the request for them to stop having sex because they could be easily seen.
 
sangha;1063768207And again said:
Really? What kind of seizure was this, if it wasn't either a Terry stop or an arrest? No need to get peevish. That should be an easy question for someone who knows the law as well as you have claimed to.
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
First off...she is the one who interjected race. It was a simple public indecency or prostitution investigation before that.

Second, when investigating the alleged crime the cop should check the ID's of the people involved. If the woman came up as a known prostitute or the guy came up as a known John then there would have been cause to investigate further.

The law doesn't need to change. What needs to happen is that people need to start understanding that the world doesn't revolve around them and that their farts don't smell like lilac. It's also time to look at exactly how this "animosity" between cops and blacks is really generated.
Click to expand...

By racial component I mean that posters are reacting one way because she's a black woman claiming racism.

I'm not really sure why it would matter if she were arrested for prostitution. That has no real bearing on whether or not she committed a crime that day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom